Fair Use Legalese

This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which
has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are
making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of
political, human rights, economic, democracy, and social justice issues, etc. We
believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17
U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to
those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information
for research, educational, or satirical purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material
from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must
obtain permission from the copyright owner.

First Lady Michelle Obama said of deciding what American children should eat: “We can’t just leave it up to the parents.”

To borrow a particularly imbecilic phrase that we heard somewhere: “Yes You Can!”

Moreover, given our particular allergic reaction to the federal government butting into our personal affairs, a reaction that includes, but is not limited to, sudden yet alarmingly precise discharges of high-velocity projectile firearms, we strongly recommend that you do leave it to us.

Listen, Moo-chelle, we’re not at all opposed to you filling your meaningless existence with some hobby horse of yours, nor are we particularly in disagreement with you that too many of our youngsters are unnaturally well-endowed in the adipose tissue department, but it’s still none of Washington DC’s, or your, business.

And, and let us be frank here, the message you’re trying to convey would be ever so much more convincing if it came from somebody other than an ambulatory double-wide with a tendency to sneak off to gorge on french fries and burgers any chance she gets.

Imagine Nancy Reagan with pinhead pupils, a syringe in her hand and a latex tube wrapped tightly around her biceps saying “just say no.”

You dig?

But that’s not the point, really. The point is that you don’t get to tell us that we’re too stupid to raise our own kids, and if you try to use the force of law to do so, you won’t like the reaction. Because it’s none of ya bidness.

Oh, and thanks for your idiotic claim that childhood obesity is a “national security matter.” Now your retard hubby’s understudy, Janet Incompetano, will be sending out goons to dig around the crotches of three-year-olds for Twinkies and Ho-Hos.

We don’t begrudge you your hobby. You can plant collard greens all the way up and down The Mall if you so desire, but fuck with our Imperial Family and you’re going down. HARD.

So tell your Food Police to bring friends. Lots of them. We like target rich environments.

Thatisall.

P.S.: Oh, and could you tell your emasculated beta male hubby to try to hide the fact that he’s your trained poodle a little better? First we get to see him abdicating his office to Billy Blow Job because he doesn’t want to “keep you waiting” and now he’s up there saying that he had to sign your pet bill or he’d be sleeping on the couch.

It’s not that we don’t know that lil’ Hussein has less spine than a tape worm and that he lives in mortal fear of your jutting testicle shelf but, you know, could he at least pretend to be in charge of his job? For national security reasons?

But not to forget that Worf and Hussein The Nadless only stuff their over-indulged faces with the very BEST burgers, fries, pizza and ice creams. They have chefs prepare the goodies specially for them. No mere Jack in the Box or Wendy’s for the Royal Family.

Question here is say Worf manages to get this particular totalitarian fantasy of hers enacted, and schools must only provide “healthful” fare, such as raw veggies and tofu to the little sweethearts, will a federal agent be there to force them to choke this crap down before they’re allowed to leave the cafeteria?

Not that your reply isn’t accurate, truthful, and jaw-breakingly funny, (emasculated lap dog, heh heh), but does this silly b*tch actually think that just because she says that kids can only eat whatever that they will listen? I know keeping mine off of drugs was fairly simple, (it is called good parenting) if labor and time intensive, but telling a 17 year old male, who hunts his own dinner a couple of times a week that he can’t eat a twinkie is gonna go over about as well as telling the ocean to ….. oh wait. That didn’t go over so well for someone, did it?

But not to forget that Worf and Hussein The Nadless only stuff their over-indulged faces with the very BEST burgers, fries, pizza and ice creams. They have chefs prepare the goodies specially for them. No mere Jack in the Box or Wendy’s for the Royal Family.
Question here is say Worf manages to get this particular totalitarian fantasy of hers enacted, and schools must only provide “healthful” fare, such as raw veggies and tofu to the little sweethearts, will a federal agent be there to force them to choke this crap down before they’re allowed to leave the cafeteria?

What about those schools that do not offer lunches (my children went to private school and had to bring their own lunches). Will parents be told what they can include in a sack lunch?

What about those schools that do not offer lunches (my children went to private school and had to bring their own lunches). Will parents be told what they can include in a sack lunch?

I was thinking the same thing, GC. Perhaps the TSA guard that searches for hidden Twinky and Funnybone contraband will inspect the home-packed lunch sack for forbidden items and confiscate. “No lunch for you!” Then a warning will be sent to the child’s parents that a fine will be in order the next time they do not adhere to the State’s dietary requirements.

What about those schools that do not offer lunches (my children went to private school and had to bring their own lunches). Will parents be told what they can include in a sack lunch?

There is NOTHING in this law that says parents can’t send their children to school with a truckload of Ho-Hos and Twinkies wrapped in bacon. What you are complaining about is what the school will provide in breakfast and lunches and vending machines.

If the school only provided bird seed, and the parents don’t like it, then send the child to school with the food of their choice. But as long as the government is providing this food for less than cost or free, then the government can decide what to provide.

Again, don’t like it? Then feed your own child and quit bellyaching as to what they feed other kids.

There is nothing in the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act that mandates what a child can bring to school, only what the school will provide.

In short, if you disapprove of the school menu, then send your kids to school with a lunch box.

Perhaps you should read the bill. All it does is change the federal breakfast, lunch, after school and summer programs for schools that participate in those federal programs. It doesn’t effect private schools or public schools that don’t take federal grant money to provide meals. And it only effects those meals that the school provides, not what the parents send with the child.

For many children, the school-provided meals are probably the only meal those kids get. Getting all screechy over telling the parents how to feed their kids is asinine. The way I see it is if the government has to feed your child, then shut the fuck up about HOW they do it.

Ok, I come from the side of having been on the adminstration side of school lunches. When I taught at parachiol schools we would have “hot” lunch 2 or 3 days a week if parents chose to pay for it. Guess where we got the food from McDonalds, Taco Bell, and Pizza Hut. My second year the fat ass principal decided that we could not have french fried with the hamburgers anymore and the kids got stuck with little bags of carrots instead. All those carrots that got thrown out by the upper grades. Those of us in the primary grades had more control and required that they eat at least a portion of their lunch before throwing it out. We were a private school and were allowed. Principal realized that fewer students were ordering on McDonald’s day and allowed for the french fries again because we made a small amount of money on the sale of each lunch.
I then had to become a candy cop because the principal decided that the kids were not to be allowed to have candy or sugary snacks. That was a serious pain in the you know what.
Then when I started working at a “Choice” School, or a voucher school. Schools that are private but tuition is paid by the state allowing low income parents to opt out of the public schools. Part of my administration duties was to oversee the federally funded school breakfast and lunch program. As federal mandates state you CANNOT require the kids to eat the food, so you know what happens they go through the line take the food and dump it in the trash can before they even sit down except for the desert if it is something that they like. So the kids do not eat breakfast or lunch, which affects their education(I hate sounding like a liberal but it is true) and when they get home are hungry and so their parents let them eat crap because to their knowledge their child ate healthy food in school.
Yep, changing the school meal programs will just mean more government money being thrown in the trash unless they decide that they are going to force feed the little chillin’s.

There also seems to be a couple of variations of this story. Some say the girl got detention, and others say she was suspended.

I do know that schools have a compelling reason to restrict certain foods from being shared. My friend has a daughter who is allergic to Red Dye #3 which is found in all sorts of different foods. She is old enough now to know which foods contain this chemical and knows that if there is a doubt not to eat anything that she is unsure of. But when she was younger, she didn’t really have that knowledge and understanding and she got seriously sick when another child shared some food with her.

There are also kids who are allergic to peanuts. I remember when my kids were in school there was a kid who couldn’t be in the same room with peanuts or peanut butter. So the school restricted other kids from bringing peanut products into class. But those are all safety concerns, not nutritional. I can see having rules in place that prohibit sharing of food, or even bringing certain foods into a certain area. But if a parent wants to send their tubby to school with bacon-wrapped Hostess Twinkies and two large bags of Lay’s Sour Cream and Onion potato chips with a two-litre bottle of Coke to wash it all down with for lunch, then that is up to them.

I pity the fool that attempts to take food from my youngest..It would be bad, very bad.

When yer growing at 15, going from 5-6 to 6ft, and from 130 to 190 in less than a year, yer gonna EAT.

This eating of his is quite serious. VERY serious.

The Klingon-in-Chief would be missing her hand if she tried to take away even ONE of the 5000-some-odd calories this kid eats per day. The teachers and administrators give this particular student (and MROTC-Sgt) a wide berth, as he is legend.

-They also kinda “know how I get”, after having kids there for the past 6 years.

Grammar Czar said the following:
So you are in favor of an apology to the girl who was suspended (iirc) for bringing Jolly Ranchers to school and sharing with a friend?
This wasn’t a result of THIS law, or any other federal law. It was school’s misinterpretation of a Texas state law.
There also seems to be a couple of variations of this story. Some say the girl got detention, and others say she was suspended.
I do know that schools have a compelling reason to restrict certain foods from being shared. My friend has a daughter who is allergic to Red Dye #3 which is found in all sorts of different foods. She is old enough now to know which foods contain this chemical and knows that if there is a doubt not to eat anything that she is unsure of. But when she was younger, she didn’t really have that knowledge and understanding and she got seriously sick when another child shared some food with her.
There are also kids who are allergic to peanuts. I remember when my kids were in school there was a kid who couldn’t be in the same room with peanuts or peanut butter. So the school restricted other kids from bringing peanut products into class. But those are all safety concerns, not nutritional. I can see having rules in place that prohibit sharing of food, or even bringing certain foods into a certain area. But if a parent wants to send their tubby to school with bacon-wrapped Hostess Twinkies and two large bags of Lay’s Sour Cream and Onion potato chips with a two-litre bottle of Coke to wash it all down with for lunch, then that is up to them.
Lizard, G.L.O.R. said the following:
Yep, changing the school meal programs will just mean more government money being thrown in the trash unless they decide that they are going to force feed the little chillin’s.
“If you don’t eat yer meat, you can’t have any pudding. How can you have any pudding if you don’t eat yer meat?”
The answer to that is simple. If they don’t eat the other stuff, then they shouldn’t get the desert.

That is the thing DJ the way the regs are written you cannot tell them what they have to or cannot have to eat. It would be great if it was changed.

All it does is change the federal breakfast, lunch, after school and summer programs for schools that participate in those federal programs.

Hmmm…most of the grocery retailers accept food vouchers, (debit cards for the employment-challenged) that can be argued, originates from federal subsidies.
They could go after the over-sugared prepared breakfast cereals, refined sugar and HFC products, highly salted snacks, luncheon meats and cheeses, frozen dinners and desserts…
What would be next?
Safety concerns for the sundry items; soaps, cleaning solutions, or food prep (deli items)?
The governing bodies say: “What about the chiiiiillldren™!”, but are only interested in the cloistered profitability and power their laws obtain.
I say it’s Trickle-Down Socialism®, to coin a phrase.DJ Allyn, ITW said the following:

The way I see it is if the government has to feed your child, then shut the fuck up about HOW they do it.

Intravenous would be fairly efficient…or better yet, a dietary supplement of all the approved caloric and vitamin needs of the child in question. That would be easy to implement; just show up for school and eat your pills. Could probably include a bit of Methylphenidate or Sertraline (Ritalin and Zoloft) for the unruly ones while they’re at it.
So, you see, that is why we need government mandated health care. [/snark]

I think this effort is rather pointless, because what a kid eats at some particular meal isn’t that important, as the food intake is averaged out and ends up as poo anyway. But these new regulations do point to a far more important and serious issue, which isn’t what kids put in their mouths but what they put in their heads. A snack the child eats will only affect him for a few hours or days, but a book he reads can effect him for a lifetime.

Which is why the federal government needs to regulate books in school libraries that take federal funds. Most, of course, should be banned as containing dangerous or socially unacceptable thoughts, images, or situations. Most of what Mark Twain wrote comes to mind, as does almost anything written after 1920. Ban it. Ban all of it, lest children be exposed to things far worse than a few extra calories that they’ll burn off on the playground.

Perhaps these new food regulations will provide the precedent so the House can address the issue at the start of the next session.

But as long as the government is providing this food for less than cost or free, then the government can decide what to provide.

But it isn’t provided for free. We’re paying for it. And we shouldn’t be.

It isn’t the federal fucking government’s job to use the schools to feed anyone, and it certainly isn’t their job to feed them fucking breakfast.

This bill is loaded down with federal nanny bullshit:

One glaring example from the top of page 141(and there are other “programs” Floowups, surveys, and rule-making opportunities throughout this well-polished turd):

‘‘(2) PROGRAM.—The Secretary shall carry out a program to assist eligible schools, State and local agencies, Indian tribal organizations, agricultural producers or groups of agricultural producers, and nonprofit entities through grants and technical assistance to implement farm to school programs that improve access to local foods in eligible schools.”

Really? Really?

So the idiots in DC think that either the evil local farmers are all conspiring to keep their products out of the local schools;

Or that the local schools are too stupid to know how to buy food from local producers;

Or that farmers, who have been selling surplus product since they figured out how to move beyond subsistance farming were somehow too stupid to find a market for their wares.

Thank God for those Haaaaavvvvvaaaarrrd edumincated loyahs in the Senate to help save the day for them with yet another fucking government program! How the hell did we ever make this far without them….and more importantly, how will we ever survive the application of even more layers of this bullshit?

It isn’t free. It never was. And that’s the point.

If I’m at the point where my kids need these lunches [Now with an extra .6 cents a piece in Federal Subsiudies and Grants!], its because these fucking theives in DC could not stop buying votes with MY money, and there was nothing left of MY money for me to spend on MY children’s food.

But as long as the government is providing this food for less than cost or free, then the government can decide what to provide.
But it isn’t provided for free. We’re paying for it. And we shouldn’t be.
It isn’t the federal fucking government’s job to use the schools to feed anyone, and it certainly isn’t their job to feed them fucking breakfast.
This bill is loaded down with federal nanny bullshit:
One glaring example from the top of page 141(and there are other “programs” Floowups, surveys, and rule-making opportunities throughout this well-polished turd):
‘‘(2) PROGRAM.—The Secretary shall carry out a program to assist eligible schools, State and local agencies, Indian tribal organizations, agricultural producers or groups of agricultural producers, and nonprofit entities through grants and technical assistance to implement farm to school programs that improve access to local foods in eligible schools.”
Really? Really?
So the idiots in DC think that either the evil local farmers are all conspiring to keep their products out of the local schools;
Or that the local schools are too stupid to know how to buy food from local producers;
Or that farmers, who have been selling surplus product since they figured out how to move beyond subsistance farming were somehow too stupid to find a market for their wares.
Thank God for those Haaaaavvvvvaaaarrrd edumincated loyahs in the Senate to help save the day for them with yet another fucking government program! How the hell did we ever make this far without them….and more importantly, how will we ever survive the application of even more layers of this bullshit?
It isn’t free. It never was. And that’s the point.
If I’m at the point where my kids need these lunches [Now with an extra .6 cents a piece in Federal Subsiudies and Grants!], its because these fucking theives in DC could not stop buying votes with MY money, and there was nothing left of MY money for me to spend on MY children’s food.

Starting to see the relevance between ‘accuracy’ and the “Leftists” actual location???

Response to LC Roguetek @:
And how much money is going to be wasted when the kids refuse to eat the bean sprouts and tofu? You can lead a kid to the lunch line, but you can’t make him eat (for now, anyway).

How about they use some freaking common sense and admit it’s NOT what the kids are eating that is the problem. Kids have been eating junk since the dawn of time and will continue to do so for eons more.
What this mad cow needs to acknowledge is that obesity has been a problem right about the same time that they discontinued PE classes and turned competitive sports into competitive navel gazing in fear of hurting some little rolly polly’s feeewings if he’s not the MVP of the school soccer team.

When kids sit on their ass all day and then go home and do the same thing in front of the X Box or computer…what the hell is the body supposed to do with all those calories? Hell you can get fat off nothing but carrots if you sit on your ass all day long.

The Klingon-in-Chief would be missing her hand if she tried to take away even ONE of the 5000-some-odd calories this kid eats per day. The teachers and administrators give this particular student (and MROTC-Sgt) a wide berth, as he is legend.

Again, are you expecting the school to be feeding your child at 5000 calories? Seriously? The taxpayer should foot that bill for you?

This bill has nothing to do with what YOU choose to feed your child, only what the SCHOOL will feed him. If he requires more, then he needs to bring his own. There is nothing in the bill that restricts what the child can bring from home.

As a parent, it isn’t mandatory that you allow the school to feed your child. The program is only there to feed those children who aren’t being fed at home, or who have parents who are too lazy to provide a child’s breakfast or lunch. Don’t like what the school is feeding your child? Feed your own child, and quit bellyaching about how the taxpayer funded food consists of.

What is so hard to understand about this? So the kid doesn’t like the food. If the kid isn’t eating at home, pretty soon he will learn to like the food — or go hungry.

To nobody in particular (but if the shoe fits…)

I personally feel that if you cannot care for, and feed your own children, then you shouldn’t have had them. Why should I have to subsidize YOUR kids with meals? And then have you complain about the meals they are being fed by the government?

If it were up to me, I would take the kids from you and give them to parents who can and will provide for them.

I wonder how long until sack lunches are inspected for “contraband.” After all, it isn’t “fair” for a kid to bring cookies from home, when the kid buying lunch at school can’t have them.

I wonder how long it will be before we have an ice cream dispenser here on this site? Or a cow learns how to bark.

The thing is, it ISN’T on anyone’s agenda to do that. We can sit here for days thinking up the “what-ifs” and “I-wonders”. The long and short of it is this: the bill was designed to provide guidelines for healthy food being served as part of a government subsidized school feeding program. Not all schools receive these federal grants, and if a school doesn’t want to participate in such a program, then they don’t have to apply.

As far as a parent wanting to supply his or her child on their own — they still have the freedom and the option of doing just that.

Hmmm…most of the grocery retailers accept food vouchers, (debit cards for the employment-challenged) that can be argued, originates from federal subsidies.
They could go after the over-sugared prepared breakfast cereals, refined sugar and HFC products, highly salted snacks, luncheon meats and cheeses, frozen dinners and desserts…
What would be next?

Again, a person who is relying on federal dollars to feed themselves and/or their children really don’t have much of a right to complain. If all you can get with food stamps is tofu, carrot sticks and rice, then tough. It is free food that is not only healthy, but will keep you alive until hopefully you can provide for yourself again.

Response to Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere @:
I think you might be overreacting just a tad here.
Unless I’m wrong, the whole point of the local foods thing is to help local producers and work their way through the mountains of red tape that get in the way of the schools’ being able to buy fresh produce from local producers.
I reiterate that I could be wrong, but I know that if I am I can count on someone to correct me.

I think everyone is missiong the main point. This is not about what kids do, or do not eat. What is at issue is creating a need for more food service workers (three lies in a single phrase there) employed in the school cafeteria, all of them paying union dues to SEIU, and each one of them an obese, unhygienic, TSA reject.

The First Heifer has this to say to ALL YOU PEASANTS. Especially you HONKY PEASANTS.

Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage.

Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.

Got that, crackahs?

This sow takes the cake and sits in it, too (and Noel Coward says you can never, never do that. Though, judging by her semi-literate Princeton “thesis,” I doubt seriously that the sow knows who Noel Coward is).

…….thereby being able to consume the confection from BOTH ends. Saves time and energy.

I remember the “Oblabla will require you to WORK speech” Something neither No Nads nor The First Sow would know anything about. Goll-ee! Fat Arse hasn’t lost any of her obnoxious, arrogant, ignorant edge, has she?

Again, a person who is relying on federal dollars to feed themselves and/or their children really don’t have much of a right to complain. If all you can get with food stamps is tofu, carrot sticks and rice, then tough. It is free food that is not only healthy, but will keep you alive until hopefully you can provide for yourself again.
Don’t like it? Don’t apply for food stamps. Pretty simple concept.

Naw. I have always believed in this. I do believe in the government providing a limited safety net for people who are truly in trouble. But that is a safety net of limited proportions — enough to provide shelter, food, and clothing at a basic level until they are able to get back on their feet again.

Unemployment is a different animal. It is insurance that you’ve either directly or indirectly paid into in case you lose your job through no fault of your own. You aren’t going to live comfortable on unemployment — as some of you can already attest to — but it will help prevent you from being tossed out on the street until you are able to secure another job or income.

But food stamps and welfare? Nobody “earns” that. It is a giveaway, and the government has every right to dictate how and on what you spend it on.

Unless I’m wrong, the whole point of the local foods thing is to help local producers and work their way through the mountains of red tape that get in the way of the schools’ being able to buy fresh produce from local producers.

What red tape might that be?

Do counties and states micromanage schools (which are subdivisions under their jurisdiction) to the point that they make it difficult to procure food from local producers?

Or is it some sort of federal nanny-state bullshit law where the Federal government somehow usurped authority and imposed “red tape” into a process where none need have existed?

When the cure is as onerous as the disease, you can bet that both were originally a government “solution” to a perceived problem, and the distance of the government from the cure is in inverse proportion to its deliterious effects.

The operation created a big distraction to motorists heading eastbound on I-20 in rush hour, and many motorists let the AJC and the WSB traffic center hear about it.

But the operation, which also involves the Transportation Security Administration, is top-secret before it happens, Minerly said.

How nice, now TSA is conducting secret ops on the nation’s highways. Say “Hellooooooo Police State!” Never mind that it’s been shown that highway checkpoints do little, if anything to curb crime.
This happened back in late September. I’m surprised it didn’t get more media attention. (Or am I?)

I think I mentioned in another TSA thread here that Homeland Security has been using roving Sprinter vans with backscatter imaging in a lot of metropolitan areas for about four years now. They drive up and down the streets scanning vehicles for explosives and other items.

Most metro areas have been using cameras for years. Some places also use microphones to eavesdrop on conversations on the street.

I hate to break it to you, but MOST of “We The People” do support a limited safety net.. The main argument is on what those limits are going to be. I am on the austerity side of those limits.

I hate to break it do you, but serving breakfast at school extends well beyond a limited safety net. It is, however, one more example of how power-hungry semi-elected officials get to buy votes with taxpayer money.

And of course, when “WE THE PEOPLE” register our abject displeasure at this sort of behavior and the implementation of new expansions of entitlments without the authority to do so, like say a take over of individual patient data, and health care insurance, our employees insist that they know better than we how our money should be spent, that we’re ignorant, that we are extremists, and that government can do whatever it wants in our name (Thanks Congressman Stark! That one never gets old!).

I hate to break it to you, but MOST of “We The People” do support a limited safety net..

You can drop the condescending bull . I never said I was opposed to any sort of safety net; in fact, I have an institutionalized cousin with schizophrenia who couldn’t survive without one. I just get tired of people referring to “the government” as the be-all, end-all, when it’s actually the TAXPAYER who provides.

I wonder how long until sack lunches are inspected for “contraband.” After all, it isn’t “fair” for a kid to bring cookies from home, when the kid buying lunch at school can’t have them.
Isn’t liberal land all about being “fair”?

Already happening healthy food and no junk food rules already in effect at most schools.

I hate to break it to you, but MOST of “We The People” do support a limited safety net.. The main argument is on what those limits are going to be. I am on the austerity side of those limits.
I hate to break it do you, but serving breakfast at school extends well beyond a limited safety net. It is, however, one more example of how power-hungry semi-elected officials get to buy votes with taxpayer money.
And of course, when “WE THE PEOPLE” register our abject displeasure at this sort of behavior and the implementation of new expansions of entitlments without the authority to do so, like say a take over of individual patient data, and health care insurance, our employees insist that they know better than we how our money should be spent, that we’re ignorant, that we are extremists, and that government can do whatever it wants in our name (Thanks Congressman Stark! That one never gets old!).

The reason why the breakfast program was started was because studies show that kids who do not eat breakfast struggle more than those who do not. Unfortunately because of how the program is regulated most kids past the age of 3rd grade don’t bother to eat the breakfast they are given because it is not cool and not the crap that they want to eat and federal regs prevent telling a child they have to at least eat part of the meal. So the meal is just tossed out. Why give the kid a tray of food you know is going to be tossed out, because if the child does not take possession of the food the school cannot record that meal for reimbursement from the Federal government.
It is a system that has many many more flaws, I know too much about it and it sickens me how much taxpayer money is abused and how much corruption goes on. I bet I could get anyone qualified for free(tax-payer paid) meals, I could but would not do this since it disgusts me and is illegal. You just have to fill out the forms in the right way.

Here is where I really get upset over this program, we supply applications for the meal programs in 25 languages other than English. This just annoys me to no end. If you want the help learn the language.

Another thing that I am hacked off about, income eligibility run July 1-June 30. They are still using eligibility levels for the 2009-2010 school year because they do not have the requirements determined for the 2010-2011 school year even though it is 6 months into the time period. Government at work again

DJ Allyn, ITW bloviates:
To nobody in particular (but if the shoe fits…)

I personally feel that if you cannot care for, and feed your own children, then you shouldn’t have had them. Why should I have to subsidize YOUR kids with meals? And then have you complain about the meals they are being fed by the government?

If it were up to me, I would take the kids from you and give them to parents who can and will provide for them.

I would then send you in for Norplant.

/end of message to nobody in particular.

Aren’t you the guy who praises up the Canadian healthcare system and had such high hopes that Obamacare would nationalize the American system?
Would it be correct for me to say that you feel you shouldn’t have to subsidize someone else’s kids, but everybody else should subsidize your healthcare?

Okay, deej, you are a piece of shit. Please get the fuck out of my country.

Why don’t you come up here and force me, you little dork? Now that you are in Texas, you are all hat and no cattle. You’ve got to quit eating those leaded paint chips. They are making you believe that you are really tough or something. You are just a weak man-child who acts tough and engages in name-calling while hiding behind a computer monitor.

As far as “your” country? Sorry, Nancy-boy, but I was here first. Why don’t you get out of MY country? Oh wait, you are in Texas. Why not just secede?

Aren’t you the guy who praises up the Canadian healthcare system and had such high hopes that Obamacare would nationalize the American system?

I do praise the Canadian health care system. ObamaCare is no where near the Canadian health care system. ObamaCare is only a big, giant kiss for the private insurance companies. Contrary to the popular meme around here, the government doesn’t get a dime or spend a dime of this money. They just mandate that you MUST purchase insurance from a private company that can dictate to you what you are going to pay them. The government collects no revenue on this.

The difference is, the participants of the Canadian health care system are paying into it in monthly premiums. There isn’t a similar program for the school lunch program.
Apples and oranges.

I am a Canadian citizen, and to my knowledge we “participants” in the healthcare system have no choice about participating–the monthly premiums are deducted from our paycheques just like our taxes are. So the only way to avoid paying is either tax evasion(which is illegal) or stop working for a living and starve or start sucking the gov’t welfare teat.
So call it “monthly premiums” or taxes, it’s still a government mandated wealth transfer from the haves to the have-nots. In other words somebody is forced to subsidize someone else’s responsibilities.

I am a Canadian citizen, and to my knowledge we “participants” in the healthcare system have no choice about participating–the monthly premiums are deducted from our paycheques just like our taxes are. So the only way to avoid paying is either tax evasion(which is illegal) or stop working for a living and starve or start sucking the gov’t welfare teat.
So call it “monthly premiums” or taxes, it’s still a government mandated wealth transfer from the haves to the have-nots. In other words somebody is forced to subsidize someone else’s responsibilities.

HAH!!

There you go deej. You suck on both sides of the Northern border. I bet you can’t even see russia from YOUR front porch.

oooo, I am shakin’ in my slippers. Lots of tough talk from that computer, but we all know you are not going to bust a grape. You sound like a sixth grade bully calling someone out after school. Do you know how silly and childish you sound? It is really hard to take you seriously.

Response to Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere @:
IIRC, I read that there are a lot of inspection and testing requirements as well as documentation requirements that must be met in order to be approved as a supplier of food to a school or school system. (Relatively) small local producers are just not set up to deal with it. Hence the program.

I am a Canadian citizen, and to my knowledge we “participants” in the healthcare system have no choice about participating–the monthly premiums are deducted from our paycheques just like our taxes are.

Actually you can opt out if you want. You can choose to go with a private insurance carrier if that is your wish. You ARE required to have one or the other or both though.

Besides, many employers will pay your premiums for you. Maybe you need to find better work? My employer pays mine, so I don’t actually have to.

So call it “monthly premiums” or taxes, it’s still a government mandated wealth transfer from the haves to the have-nots. In other words somebody is forced to subsidize someone else’s responsibilities.

I hate to break it to you, but a whole lot of someones subsidized almost everything in your life. If you drove to work today, other people subsidized you so that you were able to get there in your car. Your toilet flushed properly because everyone subsidized the system to allow that to happen for you. The food you eat is subsidized by other people to make sure it is safe for you to eat. That plane that flew over your head didn’t fall on you because people subsidized your safety. You are using an Internet connection that is being subsidized by other people. There is no way that you or I or anyone else here is going to be able to afford to pay for everything that you take for granted on your own.

Actually you can opt out if you want. You can choose to go with a private insurance carrier if that is your wish. You ARE required to have one or the other or both though.
Besides, many employers will pay your premiums for you. Maybe you need to find better work? My employer pays mine, so I don’t actually have to.

yeah, and opting out is probably prohibitively expensive as it soon will be here, thereby forcing you into the “single payer” plan…..and boy would I love to meet that single payer and shake his hand, he’s one generous dude.

I hate to break it to you, but a whole lot of someones subsidized almost everything in your life. If you drove to work today, other people subsidized you so that you were able to get there in your car. Your toilet flushed properly because everyone subsidized the system to allow that to happen for you. The food you eat is subsidized by other people to make sure it is safe for you to eat. That plane that flew over your head didn’t fall on you because people subsidized your safety. You are using an Internet connection that is being subsidized by other people. There is no way that you or I or anyone else here is going to be able to afford to pay for everything that you take for granted on your own.
You are being subsidized. Get over it.

ummmm….hate to break it to you man, but I’m a subsidizer….I pay into all of that stuff, and by God I get something back on that investment. Paying for someone elses medical plan, and paying for people to stay out of work does nothing for this country’s economy or well being. I get no return on that money, it goes into some black hole and we gain nothing.

…and you are subsidized by others. That is a cold, hard fact. I know you think that it is a bad word, but collectively we all put our money in.

and I subsidize them……..if there is a service provided by the tax money I pay, than I’m cool with that mostly….but when my taxes go up and services get cut like our esteemed Governor Gregoire has proposed then I have a problem.

I hate to break it to you, but a whole lot of someones subsidized almost everything in your life. If you drove to work today, other people subsidized you so that you were able to get there in your car. Your toilet flushed properly because everyone subsidized the system to allow that to happen for you. The food you eat is subsidized by other people to make sure it is safe for you to eat. That plane that flew over your head didn’t fall on you because people subsidized your safety. You are using an Internet connection that is being subsidized by other people. There is no way that you or I or anyone else here is going to be able to afford to pay for everything that you take for granted on your own.

Drove to work today, yes…but I paid taxes to for the road, through my licensing fees and the taxes at the gas pump.

My food is safe…I paid something extra for the processor to pay the gov’t to inspect it…I don’t beleive the company just absorbed that cost.

The plane didn’t fall on my head today…I pay a tax every time I fly to make sure it doesn’t happen.

I wasn’t “subsidized” I paid for it.

If they aren’t charging the amount necessary to fund what they are required to do, it must be gov’t…hence deficits, they won’t tell you what something costs, it’s greed or some other phantom that is the reason .

Here is the part that you are failing to grasp. You paid a very tiny fraction of the cost to provide all of that to you. How about you pay for the entire shebang, just for yourself? You couldn’t do it, so you, along with everyone else is subsidizing each other so that you can have that road, that toilet flush, this internet to communicate with.

Without other people paying into all of this you wouldn’t have it. We are the sum of its parts.

So the reality is, you are being subsidized just like everyone else. Why is that such a hard concept to understand?

if there is a service provided by the tax money I pay, than I’m cool with that mostly….but when my taxes go up and services get cut like our esteemed Governor Gregoire has proposed then I have a problem.

Costs are not fixed — that is capitalism. If you’ve been providing services without keeping up with the funding, then eventually you either raise those funds or you cut the services.

The problem the states have been having — California isn’t the only one in financial trouble, is mostly due to the economy, and the lower tax revenue caused by more and more people being unemployed. If you don’t earn an income, you don’t pay taxes. Lower tax revenue makes for large shortfalls. In order to keep certain services running, you either have to raise taxes, cut services, or both.

Then you have the jackasses who want to “privatize” everything because they don’t want to pay taxes. They are too stupid to understand that they will end up paying MORE money for LESS services because whoever provides those services will have a much larger overhead, and will take a lot of the money out in the form of profits. Apparently these people are not able to think things through all the way to the end, they just get to the part where they won’t be paying out as much in taxes, and how wonderful those services will be provided by that magical “free market” horseshit.

You paid a very tiny fraction of the cost to provide all of that to you. How about you pay for the entire shebang, just for yourself? You couldn’t do it, so you, along with everyone else is subsidizing each other so that you can have that road, that toilet flush, this internet to communicate with.

This is semantics. You are using the word subsidy to mean something it doesn’t really.

sub·si·dy
? ?/?s?bs?di/ Show Spelled[suhb-si-dee] Show IPA
–noun, plural -dies.
1.a direct pecuniary aid furnished by a government to a private industrial undertaking, a charity organization, or the like.
2.a sum paid, often in accordance with a treaty, by one government to another to secure some service in return.
3. a grant or contribution of money.
4.money formerly granted by the English Parliament to the crown for special needs.

When I fly, I am not contributing. I am paying for a service that I use. It’s voluntary. When I buy groceries, I am not contributing. I am paying for a service that I use. It’s voluntary. When I pay my doctor, I’m not contributing. I’m paying for a service that I use. It’s voluntary. This is private sector. These are not subsidies.

When my taxes go to support the National Endowment for the Arts, that’s a contribution, a subsidy. I get NOTHING in return.

Using private sector examples as an argument is specious. Most of those are voluntary.

This is semantics. You are using the word subsidy to mean something it doesn’t really.

I was using it in the context that Weyland used. He complained that his $54 premium “subsidized” others, so I’ve been pointing out how he is being “subsidized” by others, in that the meager premium he pays doesn’t come close to covering the actual costs involved in even one office visit.

Additionally, the meager amount of money we individually pay in taxes doesn’t come close to paying for the services and systems we all take for granted. We rely on money from other people to make all of this work.

If I visit Nebraska, I didn’t pay for the roads I would be traveling on, someone else did. So they are in essence, subsidizing me, aren’t they?

When I pay my doctor, I’m not contributing. I’m paying for a service that I use

And I submit that you are not paying the full cost for your visit, that if others hadn’t already been paying for the time, equipment, location, and labor, then you couldn’t afford the actual cost of that visit.

The use of the word “subsidy” was probably wrong, but so is your definition, that tends to limit “subsidies” to government. It was used initially by Weyland, and it came close to what was needed. In essence, by everyone paying into a pool, they are being subsidized by others when they need to use the service or infrastructure.

This also works the same way in the private sector. You pay a specific rate for say, cable service. Let’s just say you pay Comcrap $142 per month for TV and Internet. Because there are hundreds of thousands of other customers using the Comcrap infrastructure, Comcrap is able to provide you with that particular service you want for $142 per month, and they still make a profit. But if you are the only customer, there is no way they would be able to provide that same service to you at even ten times that much. Or a thousand times that much. You pay what you pay because there are a lot of others paying for that service. Like you, they helped pay for the infrastructure, so Comcrap subsidizes the cost to you while providing the service you request.

Getting back to the original, Weyland pays a small premium every month and complains that he is somehow ‘subsidizing’ others. If so, then HE is being subsidized by them as well.

Like you, they helped pay for the infrastructure, so Comcrap subsidizes the cost to you while providing the service you request.

But if I choose not to use this service I am not being charge to subsidize others, for the infastructure, and pretty sure if I was the only one that wanted cable they wouldn’t be in bussiness, now I have to subsidize someone going to the Dr. even if I never go myself.
I’m not using the service so why should I have to pay for it for someone else?

If I visit Nebraska, I didn’t pay for the roads I would be traveling on, someone else did. So they are in essence, subsidizing me, aren’t they?

Wrong, If the government actually spends the federal gas tax on what they are supposed to, you just by buying gas in Seattle or where ever you live( not being a dick, just don’t remember) are paying for the road maintenence in Nebraska, Ohio or whatever state you choose to visit, which really isn’t fair again to people who never venture outside of their home state.

PUBLIC infrastructure is paid for by my taxes, so, yeah, I suppose it’s a “subsidy” of sorts. A TRUE subsidy is money going in to support something when there is no ROI…like MIcro$oft writing a check to Apple every month to subsidize them. The only thing MS gets out of it is that they aren’t hauled up on anti-trust violations.

I don’t “subsidize” the airlines if I don’t fly. I don’t “subsidize” Walmart if I shop at Target. If I donate to walmart (or am forced to pay taxes to support them), and I don’t shop there, THAT becomes a subsidy.

A true subsidy is like us providing for the NEA (arts, not education). I get NOTHING in return. NOTHING. I helped subsidize government motors. I got NOTHING in return. The least they could have done was send me a new car, since I paid for one.